Carter (Re), 2024 ABCJ 10

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: Carter (Re), 2024 ABCJ 10 Date: 20240105 Docket: 2390305882 Registry: Edmonton Between: Glen Carter Applicant Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on January 19, 2024; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Chief Justice J.A. Hunter [ 1 ] The Court has, over the past weeks, received a large amount of documentation from the Applicant, Glen Carter, requesting leave of this Court to commence two separate proceedings. [ 2 ] Mr.

Carter has done so in order to comply with the order of Ashcroft J granted on August 9, 2019. In response to a judicial review application brought by Mr. Carter, Justice Ashcroft, on the Court’s own motion and inherent jurisdiction, declared him a vexatious litigant and imposed court access restrictions on him ( Carter v Alberta (Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 491 [ Carter #1 ]). The terms of that order are attached as “Appendix A” to this Memorandum of Decision. The restriction that is most salient to this application is that Mr.

Carter is not permitted to commence a proceeding in this Court without applying first to the Chief Justice for leave. To be clear, the Order of Justice Ashcroft was made prior to the naming changes in this Court, as while the Court remains the same, the Provincial Court of Alberta is now known as the Alberta Court of Justice, and the Chief Judge is now styled as the Chief Justice. [ 3 ] In short, the first proceeding is in relation to his housing situation, and the other relates to what would amount to a negligence claim against his former dentist.

These are my reasons in relation to the housing claim; the other proposed claim is explored in Carter (Re) , 2023 ABCJ 276 . The Claim [ 4 ] Between October 24, 2023, and November 1, 2023, the Court received several packages of documents via email from Mr. Carter which are a request to initiate claims in the Alberta Court of Justice. The first package of documents, which was the most voluminous, relates to, among other issues, his housing situation. [ 5 ] The documents received include a letter to the Chief Judge (now the Chief Justice) outlining Mr.

Carter’s claim, a supporting affidavit, numerous documents which may or may not have formed part of the record for two proceedings before the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS), recordings of some of those hearings, documents previously provided to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (as it then was) to provide context, videos, an undertaking, some written submissions, and unsworn

evidence. [ 6 ] Mr. Carter did not provide a copy of the proposed Civil Claim that he wants to file as required in paragraph 4(iii)(

b) of Justice Ashcroft’s Order. While this alone is fatal to his application, this Court, in the interest of judicial economy, will evaluate his purported claims on the basis as set out in his letter to the Chief Judge referred to previously. [ 7 ] In general, the claims relate to his housing at Horizon Housing Society. However, they also include reference to what, in Mr. Carter’s mind, is a long standing campaign of harassment and surveillance by various state actors, and requests relief which will assist him in proving the same. [ 8 ] Further, while Mr.

Carter provided an Affidavit, it must be recognized that that Affidavit substantially refers to information and privacy requests from long in the past. I believe that many of those issues were essentially the basis of the Carter #1 litigation. There are further references to damages to personal property suffered in a storage locker unrelated to the proposed Defendants, surreptitious surveillance, threatening experiences unrelated to the proposed Defendants, and information relating to the obtaining and enforcement of the eviction order obtained by the Landlord. Mr.

Carter does, however, depose to damage to his FM clock radio, the alleged disabling of the heating in the unit, and the alleged disabling of the toilet flusher within his unit. [ 9 ] The claims outlined in his letter are wide ranging and difficult to understand. They can best be summarized as: 1) That the Calgary Housing Corporation (hereinafter the “CHC”) failed to meet their own requirements under the Alberta Housing Act , and the associated regulations, in that Mr.

Carter was placed in unsuitable housing, that they refused to assist him in dealing with issues with the landlord, and that removed his name from their registry following his acceptance of the rental unit and refused to restore his priority after his eviction. This is a claim that can be evaluated in concert with Mr.

Carter’s allegation that the Landlord provided him with an inappropriate lease agreement; 2) That the Landlord, Horizon Housing Society, or perhaps others, had tampered with the unit’s heating, electricity, plumbing, ventilation, and his personal property, as well as harassed him through illicit surveillance and disturbances which impacted his enjoyment of the rental unit; 3) That Mr.

Carter suffered personal injury due to the presence of volatile organic chemicals in his unit, and in the hallway; 4) That he was wrongfully evicted by the landlord; and 5) That he has been subjected to a long standing campaign of harassment, assaults, discrimination, injustices and conspiracy. [ 10 ] The remedies that he requests in the same document are: 1) “The specific disclosure of documents between the Landlord and [Calgary Housing Corporation] for the sake of proving relevant facts and initiating the process of judicial redress for a longstanding campaign”; 2) Compensation for the harassment and loss of the peaceful enjoyment of the rental premises; 3) Compensation for the wrongful eviction; 4) To make a finding as to the suitability of the unit for subsidized housing registrants; 5) In the alternative, leave to commence a proceeding with the Alberta Ombudsman in relation to the manner in which he was dealt with by the Calgary Housing Corporation; and 6) To modify the existing order as it relates to the Court of Justice, specifically in regard to the fee waiver.

Test for Leave to Initiate Litigation [ 11 ] A person who is subject to court access restrictions is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019) [ Re Thompson ] . [ 12 ] In order to obtain permission to initiate this litigation, Mr. Carter must: 1) Establish reasonable grounds for the litigation; and 2) Depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding.

Re Thompson , at paras 19; 27. [ 13 ] The threshold test for leave is similar to that for

summary judgment, in that that the applicant must show that there is merit to the claim, and that the applicant must “put their best foot forward” in their application. This is not onerous, as it is merely marshalling the evidence that they would need in any case for their proposed litigation ( Re Thompson , at paras 25-27). [ 14 ] Further, to determine the reasonableness of the proposed litigation, the Court may take into account the purposes of the specific court access restrictions, economic aspects of the proposed litigation, failure to pay costs, and the potential the justice system will be misused.

This is part of a broad and contextual evaluation of the reasonableness of proposed litigation ( Knutson (Re) , 2023 ABKB 589 , citing Gichuru v Purewal , 2023 BCCA 245 ). A salient point by the British Columbia Court of Appeal is:

[46] In deciding whether to grant a vexatious litigant leave to commence a proceeding, a judge is entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances, keeping in mind that the vexatious litigant order is in place to prevent misuse of the justice system, not as a punitive measure. The judge must guard against the very real possibility that the vexatious litigant, true to past form, is seeking to press proceedings that will waste court resources and serve to harass litigants.

Of course, the judge must also consider the possibility that the litigation is not abusive, and that denying leave might result in a serious injustice to the applicant. [49] The result is this: where a vexatious litigant seeks leave to commence a new proceeding, the court must be convinced that the proposed proceeding is not doomed to fail and is not brought for an improper purpose or otherwise a clear abuse of process.

Once the court is satisfied that the litigant has met those minimal requirements, the court may consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether to exercise discretion in favour of granting leave. Where a serious injustice might result from a failure to allow the litigant to pursue the claim, discretion will invariably be exercised in favour of granting leave. On the other hand, where it is clear that a claim is weak, of no real importance, and uneconomical to litigate, discretion will almost certainly be exercised against granting leave.

Many cases, of course, will fall between these two extremes, and the judge hearing the application will have to exercise judgment and decide whether leave should be granted. Gichuru v Purewal , 2023 BCCA 245 at paras 46 , 49. [ 15 ] As referenced previously, the required documents are an affidavit to present evidence, and, in the case of a new Action, Application, Appeal, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed filing: Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 . [ 16 ] Further, leave may be granted in part, which means that some parts of the claim may be acceptable, and others, not.

It is for the Court to decide. [ 17 ] Other grounds for refusing leave applications are where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the Court Access Restriction Order ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ); if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation; where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335); where the abusive litigant provides false information or fails to provide necessary information; where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step; where the court has no jurisdiction over the matter; and where the applicant does not have standing to make the leave requests.

Analysis RTDRS Hearing [ 18 ] Some of this claim is in relation to the eviction order of the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service which was granted after a hearing in August, 2023. Mr. Carter takes issue with the granting of the order, and the enforcement of the terms of that order, specifically his eviction. [ 19 ] It is important to note that many of the grounds which he refers to in the Letter relating to the termination of the tenancy relate to his claims of discrimination and conspiracy by other actors.

For example, at paragraph 45 of his Letter, he states: Based on Nicole Whiteside’s testimony of August 4, 2023, the applicant’s so-called unfounded allegations were relied on to terminate the tenancy. There could therefore be no doubt that in response to the applicant’s complaint to the Landlord and notification to CHC about the hidden audio/visual device, that a decision was taken to retaliate against him.

Late night noise from the tenants in suite 316 were specifically initiated in response to the applicant’s allegations. [ 20 ] This is reproduced to provide some of the necessary background context of the claims to show how the allegations of discrimination, harassment, and other activities link his claims, and are present throughout his materials. [ 21 ] In any event, this Court cannot provide any remedy in relation to the matters decided at the RTDRS hearings.

Aside from the eviction itself, which was dealt with at the August hearing, that tribunal also decided, in May 2023, on damages related to the lack of reliable utilities upon move in, mouse issues, the toilet making noise, and a persistent paint odor. Mr. Carter experienced some success and received a modest rent abatement. [ 22 ] The appropriate forum for contesting those decisions is appeal to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. This Court is also fully aware that Mr. Carter has already applied for leave to appeal that decision in Carter v Horizon Housing Society , 2023 ABKB 558 [ Carter #2 ] .

Leave to appeal was not granted. Any further claim encompassing elements that were already decided is out of the jurisdiction of this Court and is a collateral attack on both the RTDRS decision as well as the decision in Carter #2 and is an abuse of process. This affects the assessment of the remainder of the claim in determining whether it is possible for the applicant to prosecute his claims in an appropriate manner. [ 23 ] Further, it must be stressed that the record in this regard in not complete. The Court has been provided with audio recordings of the hearings, but those audio recordings are incomplete.

For example, the audio recording of the May hearing contained only the decision. There is no context to that decision other than unfiled representations, and a filed document titled “Evidence”. For the August hearing, the Court received what appears to be 3 of 4 audio files, again without the representations at the hearing, along with a filed document titled “Evidence”, and what seems to be a copy of an unfiled counterclaim. For a significant amount of the claim, what is before this Court, even if it was in an Affidavit (which it was not), does not assist in determining exactly what was before the RTDRS.

There were no audio recordings or documents put before the Court as to the Landlord’s representations, arguments, or evidence. While this is not an “appeal” of the RTDRS order, so much of Mr. Carter’s claim is intertwined with it, and without the ability to determine what has already been decided the court cannot evaluate the request properly: Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 .

[ 24 ] For those reasons, I refuse to permit this part of the proposed claim. Matters related to the Agreement [ 25 ] Mr. Carter raises issues relating to the appropriateness of the rental agreement as well as whether the CHC appropriately placed him and whether they have inappropriately removed him from their placement list. [ 26 ] Mr. Carter alleges that the lease agreement entered in to with the Landlord was illegal, in that it was a fixed term tenancy. He believes that the agreement must be a month-to-month tenancy, which belief is based upon an email with the CHC.

That email, which is not part of any sworn evidence, purports to be from the CHC, and states that while a copy of the contract between the CHC and the Province is unable to be provided, the contract requires that the agreement between the landlord and tenant must be a month to month lease. Because he was not subject to a periodic tenancy, he was subjected to the end of his tenancy as a matter of course and removed from the subsidized housing registry.

There is also reference that he was unsuccessful in appealing this matter with the CHC through some manner of internal process. [ 27 ] There are several issues with this position. First, and most critically, is that this Court was not provided with a copy of the lease agreement, only a copy of an unrelated rental agreement between the applicant and a previous landlord, from 2021.

There are a series of unsworn documents provided, such as an inspection report, a disclosure consent agreement, a document related to the subsidization of the unit’s rent, and a rental agreement addendum regarding subsidization with the CHC. Second, if in fact the agreement was a periodic agreement, the tenant does state in the document marked as “Counterclaim”, filed August 2, 2023, with the RTDRS, that he was aware that the agreement was a fixed term tenancy (though he states that he asked for a periodic tenancy which was refused).

Third, a cursory examination of the CHC website states the opposite of the email referred to, in that a

section explains that a tenant will enter into an agreement for a fixed term tenancy, and that renewals could be considered. This makes sense in relation to the nature of the program, in that there is a constantly moving list of potential tenants which are reassessed and assigned housing based upon need. Fourth, Mr. Carter has failed, as required, to fully depose of the facts surrounding the potential claim, in that there is a lack of any type of information, sworn or otherwise, as to the circumstances surrounding his removal from the subsidized housing list, and any associated appeal. Finally, Mr.

Carter, in his materials, purported to terminate the lease himself in August of 2023. [ 28 ] In sum, the failure to meaningfully depose as to the events surrounding his lease agreement and any associated removal from the subsidized housing list does not allow this Court to make any determinations or to effectively evaluate the claim, and as shown above, the balance of probabilities threshold has not been met. Harassment and Loss of Peaceful Enjoyment [ 29 ] Mr.

Carter proposes that he has a good claim to advance in relation to ongoing harassment by various actors and for the loss of peaceful enjoyment of his rental unit. These claims are tied together and are somewhat interwoven with the RTDRS issues referred to previously. [ 30 ] From what can be gleaned from the materials, Mr. Carter believes that there was damage caused to his clock radio, as it was working when he left, and was not when he returned. Similarly, he believes that his toilet flush lever was disabled, as it was working when he left, and was not when he returned. As to causation, Mr.

Carter infers that someone had surreptitiously entered his unit to tamper with the same. He refused to accept the explanation from the Landlord that the toilet lever assembly simply became disengaged. The same is true in relation to his claim that the thermostat was set overly high, and on a different occasion when it did not provide heat. [ 31 ] Mr. Carter has also stated that there was surveillance equipment which was placed in his apartment.

The support for this proposition was that his phone was able to detect wireless networks, and that he captured photographs in the bathroom area where, prior to the RTDRS hearing of August 4, 2023, the photos were grainy, and were not after that hearing. Similarly, he referred to the fact that the heating system failed to engage, and then some time later began to work again as evidence that there was surreptitious entry into his unit. [ 32 ] Photographs are provided in some of the material, but there are none contained in the sworn affidavit.

There was also video provided in relation to the claim of surreptitious recording or surveillance devices within the unit. It must be noted that these media files do not show anything as obvious as Mr. Carter states.

Further, there is no way to confirm that the investigative techniques which he employed have any value in locating electronic surveillance as opposed to other electronic noise within a multi-unit housing complex. [ 33 ] The Volatile Organic Chemical incidents seem to relate to one instance, which was referenced in unsworn material, that there was a spill of some manner of chemical in the hallway that caused an odor and required Mr. Carter to go back in to his unit.

However, the Court has not been provided with and information regarding the manner of chemical, or any damages, aside from a printout stating potential issues regarding the use of those chemicals. [ 34 ] Some of the other harassment instances revolve around alleged surreptitious personal surveillance or alleged induced third party harassment.

Examples, which are contained in the Letter, Affidavit, and other materials, include: 1) Awakened by tenants above who had an argument, or were making other loud noises on other dates; 2) Persons yelling in the hallway; 3) A tenant on the same floor leaving his unit at the same time as the applicant; 4) Guests from other units which the applicant recognized outside the unit smoking at the same time as the applicant was entering; 5) A tenant who swore at him;

6) The police helicopter flying over the building. [ 35 ] There are some more references to instances in this accommodation, as well as in previous accommodations. What is important to note is that they all share the same theme, that there is an ongoing conspiracy between these persons and various law enforcement agencies. Mr.

Carter would likely agree with this statement, as he did at paragraph 27 of his Letter: “...In any event, since much of the harassment complained about predates the rental, the applicant would argue that the common denominator in his experience is surreptitious law enforcement activities at the property.” [ 36 ] This theme is present throughout his documents. In general, Mr. Carter believes that these are not instances associated with living in either shared accommodations, or multi unit buildings, or in an urban centre.

A further theme that can be gleaned from the documentation provided is that when there is a negative circumstance that occurs, Mr. Carter can only conclude that it is directly related to him and is done specifically – and maliciously - to affect him. See, for example, paragraph 45 of his letter to this court, as reproduced above. In order to show that all of these incidents were arranged by the police as part of the conspiracy against him, he requires access to documents to prove the same. [ 37 ] The litigation in this regard, must be assessed in relation to all the circumstances.

It certainly seems that the underlying and true purpose of this litigation is to continue to try and prove that conspiracy through the obtaining of documents. This is substantially similar to the activities related in Carter #1 and Carter #2 . [ 38 ] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof ( VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 ). The claim alleges multiple levels of law enforcement surreptitiously observing, inconveniencing, and harassing Mr. Carter for over 20 years, and expending significant resources to do so. That is certainly extraordinary. The evidence provided does not, as Mr.

Carter contends, show a clear and convincing picture that these instances are all related. [ 39 ] Alone, the persistent instances of noise may rise to a compensable claim, as too with the alleged damages to personal property and loss of heating. However, this must be assessed in the whole of the circumstances. The conspiracy issues that resulted in the Carter #1 order are so inherently intertwined in the claim that it is no more than a relitigation of past instances and would both waste resources and expose other litigants to vexatious behavior, and would be uneconomical to litigate.

This Court has no belief that Mr. Carter could separate those issues to appropriately advance his claims. Further, because of the lack of a complete record as referred to previously in relation to the RTDRS hearings, the Court is unable to determine if any of the above noted issues have already been litigated. Other Issues [ 40 ] Mr. Carter also requests that in the alternative this Court grant leave to the apply to the Alberta Ombudsman. This Court cannot do so pursuant to the terms of the Carter #1 Order.

There does not seem to be any restriction upon him to do so himself, provided that he provides a copy of that decision and order at the time of filing. [ 41 ] Mr. Carter also requests that this Court modify the terms of the Carter #1 order as it relates to this Court. I refuse to do so for two reasons: 1) Mr. Carter has a long history of unsuccessful actions before the Courts in Alberta, and his pleadings alone disclose significant issues.

The order made my Ashcroft J, to the extent that it limits his actions in the Court of Justice, is relatively minimal, and would generally be a reasonable first step in the management of a vexatious litigant based upon this, and other courts’ practices. 2) The Court of Appeal is the appropriate avenue to determine whether Justice Ashcroft’s order is overbroad and without jurisdiction. Mr. Carter’s remedy is to complete his abandoned appeal of that order. Conclusion [ 42 ] This proposed action must be assessed in relation to all the circumstances.

It certainly seems that the underlying, and true, purpose of this litigation is to continue to try and prove that conspiracy through the obtaining of documents. This is substantially similar to what Justice Ashcroft concluded in Carter #1: In sum, Mr. Carter believes he is being clandestinely observed by a myriad of actors, and that incidents in his life, such as sounds on his telephone, emergency vehicle sirens, and persons in his surroundings are evidence of such surveillance. His court and tribunal activities flow from this belief. I therefore conclude that Mr.

Carter is almost certain to continue his groundless and wasteful information- and privacy-related requests to entities in Alberta, and to challenge unfavourable results from those steps in Alberta Courts. [ 43 ] There are substantial other issues with the application of Mr. Carter for leave, as were explored previously. Mr. Carter has not complied with the Order to provide a copy of the proposed civil claim. While the Court has received a great deal of materials, much of it is not properly within the Affidavit, and even if they were, do not provide adequate evidence of a claim.

This Court cannot conclude that there are reasonable grounds to the proposed litigation or that the circumstances and facts surrounding it have been fully disclosed. [ 44 ] Mr. Carter’s request to initiate proceedings based upon the materials filed is refused. This result is final. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. [ 45 ] A Court is obliged to provide information to self-represented litigants concerning their litigation options as set out in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 . An appeal of this decision is to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.

An appeal to challenge the terms of the Carter #1 order is to the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 46 ] Mr. Carter shall be served with this decision to the email provided: aspired908@gmail.com.

Heard on the 06 th day of December, 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 5 th day of January, 2024. J.A.

Hunter Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Glen Carter Written Application Appendix A [1] Glen Carter is a vexatious litigant, and is prohibited from, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate i. commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, without an order of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted, and ii. exercising rights and making an information- or privacy-related request as authorized under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 , and Health Information Act , RSA 2000, c H-5 , without an order of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Court. [2] Glen Carter must describe himself in any application for leave or document to which this Order applies as “Glen Carter”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym. [3] To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Glen Carter must apply to a single appeal judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and i.

The application for leave must be made in writing by sending a Letter addressed to the Case Management Officer explaining why the new proceedings or the continuance of an existing proceedings is justified. ii. The Letter shall not exceed five double-spaced pages. iii. The Letter is to contain no attachments other than, for a new proceeding, the proposed notice of appeal, application or other proceeding. iv. If the single appeal judge requires further information, he or she can request it.

v. The single appeal judge can respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing or hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. vi. If the single appeal judge grants Glen Carter leave to commence an appeal, Glen Carter may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j). An application for permission to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Alberta Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of this Order restricting Glen Carter, access to the Alberta Court of Appeal;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, application, or proceeding that Glen Carter proposes to file;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed appeal, application, or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that it is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it; and

d) indicating whether Glen Carter has ever sued some or all of the respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars. [ 4 ] To commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, Glen Carter shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate: i.

The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person. ii. Any application shall be made in writing. iii. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Glen Carter’s access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Glen Carter proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Glen Carter has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding. i. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to: 1) the involved potential parties; 2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and 3) the Attorneys General of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. [5] To exercise rights and make an information- or privacy-related request as authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 , and Health Information Act , RSA 2000, c H-5 , Glen Carter: i. shall submit an application to:

a) the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, and

b) the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta. ii. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to exercise rights and make an information- or privacy-related request be given to any other person. iii. Any application shall be made in writing.

iv. Any application to exercise rights and make an information- or privacy-related request must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Glen Carter’s access to the processes authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 , and Health Information Act , RSA 2000, c H-5 ;

b) attaching a copy of the proposed information- or privacy-related request that Glen Carter proposes to submit;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed information- or privacy-related request, so as to demonstrate that the request is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Glen Carter has ever made an information- or privacy-related request to the party or parties which hold the information that Glen Carter seeks to obtain, and, if so, providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized information- or privacy-related request, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the party or parties which hold the information that Glen Carter seeks to obtain; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the information- or privacy-related request. v. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta shall, within 30 days of receipt of an application by Glen Carter to exercise rights and make an information- or privacy-related request as authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , RSA 2000, c F-25 , Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 , and Health Information Act , RSA 2000, c H-5 , submit to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate:

a) a written recommendation on whether Glen Carter’s proposed information- or privacy-related request should be granted or denied leave;

b) whether the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta recommends that submissions or other materials be received from any other potentially involved party;

c) whether Glen Carter’s information- or privacy-related request should be evaluated in open Court; and

d) any other information or recommendations that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta considers relevant to Glen Carter’s information- or privacy-related request. vi. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed information- or privacy-related request and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed information- or privacy-related request, if they so choose, to: 1) the involved potential parties; 2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and 3) the Attorneys General of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. [6] Leave to commence or continue proceedings, or to initiate an information- or privacy-related request, may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards. [7] An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. [8] An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court. [9] Glen Carter is prohibited from: i. providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any court, except on his own behalf; and ii. acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie , [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 , s 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representative in court proceedings before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal. [10] The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Glen Carter unless: i.

Glen Carter is a named party in the action in question, and ii. if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Glen Carter has been granted leave to take that step by the Court.

[11] All fee waivers granted to Glen Carter by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked. [12] The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse any fee waiver application by Glen Carter, unless Glen Carter has a court order which authorizes that step. [13] The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts. [14] Glen Carter is prohibited from, on his own behalf or on the behalf of any other person or estate: i. commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Tax Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, and any Court outside of Alberta; ii. conducting or continuing any proceeding before any Canadian administrative tribunal, including, without limitation, complaints to any professional or regulatory body, or claims to a human rights commission or tribunal; iii. submitting an information to a justice per Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 , s 504; or iv. making a complaint to any peace officer; except where Glen Carter simultaneously provides a copy of this Decision, and the August 9, 2019 Court Order made pursuant to this Decision which imposes court access restrictions on Glen Carter. [15] The approval of Glen Carter as to the form and content of this Order is not required per Rule 9.4(2)(c). _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Chief Justice J.A.

Hunter _______________________________________________________ 1. Citation number has been changed due to being filed in 2024.